It means that tax policy has hyper inflated healthcare so that too many people can't afford it. So now we created the ACA to find more ways to shove more money into the HI market because prices have gotten so high that more people are bailing. So the ACA is another attempt to keep the hyper inflation of HC going while extending treatment to more people who can't afford it. As a result the HC debate will continue and ultimately HC must become a heavily regulated market which will include universal coverage.

Not tax policy. Does not matter if the government taxed it or not. Point is people have insurance and the government really increased it when they mandated partner laws that increase the amount of people with insurance. Just because the government taxes it does not mean employers are not going to offer it. It just means the middle class will have to pay twice. Only thing that has been wrong it businesses continued to pay for usage instead of clamping it. Then again, that is what everyone is bitching about. The fact that you can not get coverage if you are too much of a user of the coverage.

Either way, more money in the system means medical facilities will continue to raise prices to claim the market.

If people have the freedom of choice wrt buying HI I am willing to bet there would be a lot less purchasers. That freedom of choice is directly tied to tax policy and rules regarding employee benefits. If you taxed all HI benefits starting today and gave the employee the option of putting that benefit in their pocket as pay vs. paying the tax and keeping the HI, I assure you that disaster would ensue for HI companies.

Right now I'm penalized and forced into my employer's HI plan due to tax rules. I would like to take my HI dollars and buy a plan on the market that suits me. But by the time I pay the tax penalties for not staying in my employer's HI plan there isn't enough money left over to come out ahead buying my own.

Quote:

Just because the government taxes it does not mean employers are not going to offer it. It just means the middle class will have to pay twice.

It's not about the employers offering. It's about giving the employees an opportunity to make their own economic decisions wrt compensation. And a HI benefit is compensation. It's a form of compensation that the employee either uses on HI or loses it. Change that and they will put it in their pocket and reject the overpriced HI. The key to keeping prices in check is a market that can be rejected when the costs are too high. Tax and benefit rules prevent the consumer of the HI from exercising this choice.

I can't understand how some many people can be willfully ignorant of market principles. We saw homes hyper inflated when the market principles were subverted with easy money. The same thing is happening with HC.

It means that tax policy has hyper inflated healthcare so that too many people can't afford it. So now we created the ACA to find more ways to shove more money into the HI market because prices have gotten so high that more people are bailing. So the ACA is another attempt to keep the hyper inflation of HC going while extending treatment to more people who can't afford it. As a result the HC debate will continue and ultimately HC must become a heavily regulated market which will include universal coverage.

Only partly true... probably 10% true. The reason why our healthcare costs are so high is because the government stepped in with the New Deal and threw off the demand curve. The government made it so that more and more people wanted "care". The government artificially increased demand by subsidizing the cost; therefore, more people decided to go see a doctor because it was now cheap for them to do so. As demand increases, the price also increases. If you make people actually pay for the services they are getting then people will stop going for services they don't need. You haven't seen anything yet, with Obamacare the increase in demand for healthcare will sky rocket.

When you hold people accountable for their own care people will spend their own money much wiser.

It was not "tax policy" that increased prices or "hyper inflation", it was the government artificially increasing demand. If your theory of hyper-inflation was true, why haven't other goods and services gone up proportionally to healthcare?

Sam, really? You do realize that Joshua Fulton (the author of the article you just posted) is "pursuing a MFA in Creative Writing"? Does his creative writing skills make him an expert in the field? Or does that just prove you will buy anyone's crap provided it lines up with your beliefs?

It was not "tax policy" that increased prices or "hyper inflation", it was the government artificially increasing demand. If your theory of hyper-inflation was true, why haven't other goods and services gone up proportionally to healthcare?

Because your employer is not buying you those other goods and services with tax exempt "buy it or lose it" compensation. Just the fact that you would ask that question indicates you have not fully grasped the ramifications of my claim.

Because your employer is not buying you those other goods and services with tax exempt "buy it or lose it" compensation. Just the fact that you would ask that question indicates you have not fully grasped the ramifications of my claim.

Nope...

By having your employer pay for it versus the end user you once again increase demand because the end user is not paying for it out their pocket. You must consider human action when when considering economics...

By having your employer pay for it versus the end user you once again increase demand because the end user is not paying for it out their pocket. You must consider human action when when considering economics...

You are just rewording what I said to disagree with me. I said that if it's the employees choice they would dump HI. IOW, you need to both tax the benefit *and* give the employee the choice to take the benefit as pay. IOW, they make the decision to put it in their pocket or not.

And once again... asking me the question you did along with what you just said indicates that you don't understand my point.

My point is that the economic decision of what should be done with the compensation of the employee's services have been taken from the employee.

"I will cease to read or respond to your comments anymore. You are just an Obama fanboy who lacks the mental capacity for analytical thought. Good day to you sir.."

Why's that? Because I question the opinion piece of a grad student studying creative writing? I find it hysterical that anyone who disagrees with you (or I should really say anyone that disagrees with Mises because that is all you ever cite as basis for your arguments) "lacks the mental capacity for analytical thought".

But hey, it was fun while it lasted. Maybe we can pick up the conversation again when you change your user name again?

"You are just rewording what I said to disagree with me. I said that if it's the employees choice they would dump HI. IOW, you need to both tax the benefit *and* give the employee the choice to take the benefit as pay. IOW, they make the decision to put it in their pocket or not.

And once again... asking me the question you did along with what you just said indicates that you don't understand my point."

He understands what you said, but it creates a gaping hole in his argument.

John thinks if you change the tax code, people will take their employer HI and not buy insurance, thus not feeding money into the system. That may be partially true, the issue is what Tucker is saying. Because people do not have to pay the bill, they continue to use the HI at will, thus increasing price because of usage. Basically with Johns idea, you will only have "sick" people insured, thus using it. It does not matter, the HI company is going to charge the company for the cost of the usage regardless and the doctors will still only have the sick insured like they do now. It will cost the company twice. They will continue to pay higher and higher premiums for the sick people and they will also be paying the non-insured as well. A prime example is Medicare. 25% of all insured but 50% of all insurance pay outs. Why? Usage.

If you are upset about not taking your money to another insurer, wait until you have to take your take home pay to buy insurance.

It is funny to me how Pelosi called the 22-30 year old crowd that chooses to not have health insurance (because they rarely get sick) “freeloaders”. Isn’t the Democratic party the official party of freeloaders?? People that, in general, are standing in line with their hands wide open wanting money for nothing… lol. She better watch what she says. Her party is in enough trouble without offending her base.

Delta, you are simply looking at what I'm saying on the surface without any regard to the ramifications. If people don't buy their employers HI, it will transform HC. HC will have to become competitive to survive as a business. People will not overuse the system. They will treat HC as a need that must be balanced against their financial resources. HI companies will have to cater to a market where people want coverage for major medical but are willing to use basic care with their own money.

In addition I believe we need a law that specifies that a HC provider charge no more for the same service as it charges any other customer. The only exception should be reduced cost for charitable services. That means that only individuals can pay less than a HI company for a service. This means once a HC provider negotiates rates for services with a HI company, then everyone can get those services at that price. People exiting the HI market give HC providers have a avenue to get customers who are no longer used by the HI company as leverage. Once HC providers can do this they can start to operate in a competitive free market. The current paradigm is to negotiate with a HI company that has all the customers locked up. Then after negotiated down to the lower possible rate, they try and recoup from those who have no insurance. Those that afford to pay get marked up as huge losses. And those who value their credit struggle to pay exorbitant charges.

HC can never be totally free market. For one the govt sanctions only those with the authority of the AMA shall practice. IMO both HC and lawyers fees should be regulated because both of those occupations have revenues and competition protected by law.

"I will cease to read or respond to your comments anymore. You are just an Obama fanboy who lacks the mental capacity for analytical thought. Good day to you sir.."

Why's that? Because I question the opinion piece of a grad student studying creative writing? I find it hysterical that anyone who disagrees with you (or I should really say anyone that disagrees with Mises because that is all you ever cite as basis for your arguments) "lacks the mental capacity for analytical thought".

But hey, it was fun while it lasted. Maybe we can pick up the conversation again when you change your user name again?

No, because you are an absolute moron that espouses nothing but your ignorant socialist view that someone can better make the important decisions in my life better than I can. You advocate for nothing but crap where an individual isn't responsible for themselves, but must be taken care of by the state. You don't believe in personal accountability, responsibility, freedom of choice, or in taking responsibility for one's own actions. You parrot the same crap that the Obama Administration tells you to. Those ideals have never worked and will never work.

Basically, I will not waste my time responding to you, it is very similar to having to answer a child's constant call for attention. You are incapable of having an honest discussion, you don't have facts, only nonsensical opinions. History will prove my point, it already has.

Delta, you are simply looking at what I'm saying on the surface without any regard to the ramifications. If people don't buy their employers HI, it will transform HC. HC will have to become competitive to survive as a business. People will not overuse the system. They will treat HC as a need that must be balanced against their financial resources. HI companies will have to cater to a market where people want coverage for major medical but are willing to use basic care with their own money.

In addition I believe we need a law that specifies that a HC provider charge no more for the same service as it charges any other customer. The only exception should be reduced cost for charitable services. That means that only individuals can pay less than a HI company for a service. This means once a HC provider negotiates rates for services with a HI company, then everyone can get those services at that price. People exiting the HI market give HC providers have a avenue to get customers who are no longer used by the HI company as leverage. Once HC providers can do this they can start to operate in a competitive free market. The current paradigm is to negotiate with a HI company that has all the customers locked up. Then after negotiated down to the lower possible rate, they try and recoup from those who have no insurance. Those that afford to pay get marked up as huge losses. And those who value their credit struggle to pay exorbitant charges.

HC can never be totally free market. For one the govt sanctions only those with the authority of the AMA shall practice. IMO both HC and lawyers fees should be regulated because both of those occupations have revenues and competition protected by law.

Change the laws! Again, you blame the free market on a system that is anything but the free market. The HC market has been destroyed by the government and now as a result you want someone to have total control over my healthcare decisions because your vision of the free market didn't work.

I reject the entire system as it stands, liberals and facists messed it up (notice I didn't say Democrats), now you want make all my decisions for me? It's time to make a stand, not bow down to the system.

What decision am I making for you? The stuff you post seems to be very knee jerk about everything. Do you actually spend any time thinking. Or do you just start a campaign anytime something doesn't strike you right?

I agree that the govt has f*k'd up HC. But I fail to see anything in my post that remotely speaks to giving someone control over your HC decisions. That's already been done. The govt controls who can offer you HC. And the govt controls what HC you are allowed to have. It even controls what people are allowed to say if they offer something for sale that is remotely related to your health. Like cherries and walnuts.

You have to realize HMO's are the response to Hillary Care back in the day. HMO's were created to manage costs and give employers a place where they pool their money into a plan and use the concept of purchasing power to lower costs. Sound familiar? What ended up happening is more money dumped into the system. Companies kept paying, law makers kept saying how many people they had to hire and so on. Everyone wants a piece.

I think HMO's were initiated by Nixon. But who cares? I don't. I'm talking about recognizing the detrimental affect of tax policy and suggesting that we should act on that recognition. This is the opposite of a political argument. lt's an argument for people to think about cause and effect.

I never even considered trying to go back in history and figuring out who was responsible. But if Republican's want to lay the blame on liberals and advocate making the changes I suggest, then I say go for it.

No, because you are an absolute moron that espouses nothing but your ignorant socialist view that someone can better make the important decisions in my life better than I can. You advocate for nothing but crap where an individual isn't responsible for themselves, but must be taken care of by the state. You don't believe in personal accountability, responsibility, freedom of choice, or in taking responsibility for one's own actions. You parrot the same crap that the Obama Administration tells you to. Those ideals have never worked and will never work.

Basically, I will not waste my time responding to you, it is very similar to having to answer a child's constant call for attention. You are incapable of having an honest discussion, you don't have facts, only nonsensical opinions. History will prove my point, it already has.

Interesting that Nixon did the HMO's. I never heard of one until after the Hilary Care try. Point is, pooling all the money did not seem to help but only made it worse. I think it relates to what you are saying regarding competition. I think your tax policy issue may be a little on the simple side. I agree if everyone just got their own money for the insurance and they had to put it into insurance, then people may think twice since a) they write the check and b) it may force doctors put a price list out front. Problem is people would not buy the insurance and second everyone has convinced businesses if they pool their money into insurance plans, they will get a volume discount. So a major company is not inclined to give you the money because of the overall discount. I think overall the cost is malpractice insurance, availability of people with insurance, and the amount of "specialized" medical professionals that have to touch you or your medical equipment or your records. Too many regulations that force the market and too many available funds to throw at it. Almost just like autoworker unions, regulations and the car manufacturers. Car makers making too much money and the unions deciding they wanted too much of the pie so automakers up the cost of the cars until the American public cracked and it all started to collapse.